Contiguous lands acquired for a common project warrant uniform market valuation absent material distinctions.

The appeals concerned land acquired in six villages in Fazilka District, Punjab, for construction of the Aspal Extension Drain.

The Land Acquisition Collector fixed a uniform rate of ₹2,25,000 per acre and awarded no severance compensation.

The Reference Court enhanced compensation, including fixing market value at up to ₹5,00,000 per acre and awarding severance damages.

The High Court revised the market values to graded rates, limited orchard compensation to 280 pleaded trees, fixed severance compensation at 40% of the acquired land’s value, and standardized tubewell compensation at ₹50,000 per tubewell.

The landowners challenged the High Court’s order in these 47 appeals.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting graded market values based on distance from Fazilka and proximity to the international border.

2. Whether compensation for fruit-bearing trees was properly limited to the 280 trees pleaded as standing on the acquired land.

3. Whether severance compensation was correctly fixed at 40% of the acquired land’s value rather than 50% of the remaining unacquired land’s value.

4. Whether solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were payable on auxiliary assets and severance damages.

5. Whether the High Court was justified in fixing tubewell compensation at ₹50,000 per tubewell and excluding statutory benefits from that amount.

Under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, market value is assessed as at the date of the Section 4 notification, with relevant potentiality and surrounding circumstances considered; Section 23(1), thirdly, requires compensation for damage caused by severance, while Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) provide additional amount and solatium on the market value of the land.

The Court applied the principles of project-wide parity and comparable valuation in Ali Mohammad Beigh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, and considered potentiality factors identified in Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar.

It applied the rule that claims must be supported by pleadings, as stated in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal.

On severance, it relied on Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi and distinguished the formula in Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab.

Under State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh, Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) benefits apply only to market value under Section 23(1), first clause, and not to damages under the other clauses.

A document’s mere marking does not prove its contents: S. Sangeetha v. Tmt. P. Ponni, following LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen.

The Court found the acquired lands sufficiently contiguous and comparable to warrant a uniform rate.

It held that the Reference Court had properly relied on the nearby Sultanpur benchmark, the lands’ suburban potential, highway access, and evidence of Fazilka’s expansion; the High Court’s radial step-down model and smallness deduction did not adequately account for those factors.

By contrast, orchard compensation was properly limited to the 280 trees pleaded in the Section 18 reference, because the claimants had not amended their pleadings to include the additional 482 trees.

On severance, the Court held that compensation had to reflect the injury to the remaining land, which the drain physically divided and made difficult to access with agricultural machinery; calculating it on the acquired strip was therefore inadequate.

It upheld the exclusion of solatium and additional amount from auxiliary-asset and severance awards under Amarjit Singh.

It also upheld the ₹50,000 tubewell figure, finding the private valuation reports unproved and noting that movable components could be shifted and reused.

It restored a uniform market value of ₹5,00,000 per acre across the villages and restored severance compensation at 50% of the market value of the remaining unacquired land.

It affirmed compensation of ₹5,38,300 for the 280 pleaded trees, denied Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) benefits on auxiliary assets and severance damages, and upheld tubewell compensation of ₹50,000 per tubewell without those statutory additions.

The additional compensation was directed to be calculated and paid within six months; any recoverable excess was subject to written notice, an opportunity to be heard, and recovery within nine months.

No order as to costs.